Post-Disaster Reconstruction and Sustainable Risk Reduction : A

Case Study of Gujarat

V.Thiruppugazh

3rd March 2011

OBJECTIVES OF RECONSTRUCTION

• Building back better in terms of safety and quality

• Futuristic reconstruction

• Risk reduction

• Sustainable vulnerability reduction

HOUSING AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

• More than 70% of the building stock in the urbanand more than 95% of the building stock in the ruralare houses

• Maximum life loss and property loss is due todestruction and damage to housing stock.

• Great care, time and money is spent for buildinghazard resistant houses

• Need to transfer Knowledge and Capacity to thebeneficiaries to ensure sustainability of theinitiatives taken during reconstruction

• Approaches: Owner-driven, NGO-driven andcontractor driven

RATIONALE FOR NGO PARTICIPATION

• Lack of capacity of the State in terms ofresources

• Ability to understand the community andPeople’s requirement better

• Ability to involve people in the program• Better placed to transfer knowledge and

capacity to the community

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Does NGO-driven reconstruction vis-à-visowner-driven reconstruction result incapacity building and knowledge transferleading to sustainability?

• What are the factors that lead to successful capacity building or the lack of it?

IS NGO DRIVEN RECONSTRUCTION BETTER?

• Studies by many including Barenstein [2006],Samaddar and Okoda [2006], Abhiyan,GSDMA and UNDP [2003] prove that interms of quality, occupancy, beneficiariessatisfaction etc. ODR is better

• No study on the performance of NGOs interms of long-term mitigation andKnowledge transfer and capacity building

26 JANUARY 2001: THE TERRIBLE HUMAN TRAGEDY

Earthquake of magnitude 6.9 on Richter scale; 7.7 Mw (USGS)

GUJARAT EARTHQUAKE-26 January 2001

Earthquake of magnitude 6.9 on Richter scale; 7.7 Mw (USGS)

Reported lives lost 13,805

167,000 persons suffered injury

One of the worst earthquakes in the last 180 years

Over 10 million people affected by the calamity

Around 5 million people needed to be given immediate relief all over the State

Over 10,000 small and medium industrial units went out of production

50,000 artisans lost their livelihood

….that too in the wake of two consecutive years of drought.

Over 300 hospitals destroyed

7,633 villages adversely affected, 450 villages flattened totally

Over 2,22,035 houses completely destroyed and 9,17,158 houses damaged

CASE-STUDY OF GUJARAT

• Owner driven 75% of the houses [160,000]• NGO- driven 25% of the houses [42,000]• NGO participation through self funds and PPPP

Scheme on equal cost sharing with the government,and one room kitchen by NGOs with provision forextension by beneficiaries

• Provides and ideal case to study the effectiveness ofNGO driven reconstruction

• Ideal setting to study the effectiveness of NGOs interms of long-term mitigation and vulnerabilityreduction

RESEARCH METHODS• Housing reconstruction completed by 2003/04• Beneficiaries have built additional rooms or made

extensions after occupancy of the house/taking possession• Study of such additions/extensions by ODR and NGO

driven houses for safety• 150 houses surveyed in the worst affected Taluka of

Bhachau in 11 villages• 60 ODR and 90 NGO driven houses [30 each for type of

NGO participation]• All 15o had one additional construction, 52% had second

additional construction and 17% of them had the thirdadditional construction by 2007

• Qualitative and quantitative methods and actual physicalsurvey by an expert team of engineers

Percentage Distribution of Total Additional Rooms by Type and Construction Approach

ApproachType of additional rooms Total

Shed/Veranda Room Kitchen

ODR 23.8(25)

60.0(63)

16.2(17)

100.0(105)

NGO 38.7(58)

16.0(24)

45.3(68)

100.0(150)

Total 32.6(83)

34.1(87)

33.3(85)

100.0(255)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate absolute number.

REASONS FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION

• Need for additional storage facility or open space [Veranda]

• Need for kitchen outside the house• Need for additional room due to marriage of

their children• Need for sitting room• Need for small business like petty shop

ADDITIONAL ROOMS BY TYPE

• Mainly rooms by ODR houses• Kitchen by NGO driven houses as NGOs

constructed kitchen inside the house• Kitchens are followed by verandas as NGO

driven houses were square urban type houses which did not provide a veranda

Earthquake Resistant Features by Construction Approach

ApproachTotal

number of houses

Houses with earthquake resistant features % to total

housesFlat roof Slope roof Total

ODR 60 8 19 27 45.0

NGO 90 - 8 8 8.9

Total 150 8 28 35 23.3

Percentage Distribution of Reasons for Incorporation of Earthquake- Resistant Features in Additional

Rooms by Construction Approach

Approach

Incorporation of earthquake-resistant features in additional rooms

TotalDue to technical suggestions by

engineer or mason

Due to the understanding of safety needs

As it was in the original

house, it was replicated

ODR 18.5(5)

63.0(17)

18.5(5)

100.0(27)

NGO 37.5(3)

62.5(5)

0(0)

100.0(8)

Total 22.9(8)

62.8(22)

14.3(5)

100.0(35)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate absolute number.

Percentage Distribution of Reasons for Non-incorporation of Earthquake Resistant Features in

Extension by Construction Approach

Approach

Non incorporation of earthquake-resistant features in extension when it is in original house

TotalDo not know

Lack of knowledge

Lack of technical guidance

Lack of resources

ODR51.5(17)

6.1(2)

15.1(5)

27.3(9)

100.0(33)

NGO17.1(14)

17.1(14)

3.7(3)

62.1(51)

100.0(82)

Total27.0(31)

13.9(16)

7.0(8)

52.1(60)

100.0(115)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate absolute number.

ANALYSIS

• Knowledge transfer and capacity building has taken placemore in ODR [5 times more than NGO driven houses]

• Lack of knowledge and technical guidance were cited asthe main reasons by ODR houses, lack of resources wassaid to be the main reason by NGO driven houses

• While 62% of the NGO driven houses cited lack ofresources- does it mean that they have the necessaryknowledge and capacity

• Lack of understanding of cost implications and superficialknowledge about hazard resistant construction

• Non participation in construction is the main reason

PARTICIPATION

• Only 43% were consulted for site selection and design.This is also only consultation and not consent

• Contractors constructed the houses on behalf of NGOs• Only 1/3 were involved in actual construction and that

too by providing labor not in monitoring or supervision• Participation by providing labor was mainly in the in-situ

villages and not in relocated villages• Beneficiaries were allotted houses in relocated villages

only after construction of all the houses. As they did notknow the house that will be allotted to them they couldnot participate

REASONS

• Participations of NGOs with diverse backgrounds

• NGOs without any prior experience of housing or disaster mitigation

• Undertaking housing reconstruction due to availability of donor funds

• Lack of expertise and experience

• Construction of houses in a product mode as humanitarian assistance rather than a vulnerability and risk reduction initiative

LESSONS LEARNED

• As people do not participate in the NGO drivenreconstruction, neither knowledge transfer nor capacitybuilding takes place through these mass housingprojects to ensure sustainable vulnerability reduction.

• Mere awareness about the need for disaster resistantreconstruction is not enough.

• The beneficiaries need to understand the actual methodof safe construction and the cost implications.

• NGOs should conduct need analysis, understand thesocio-cultural requirements of the affected and ensure amechanism to effectively involve the beneficiaries indesigning, planning and monitoring reconstruction.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Each beneficiary should know about the house that isallotted to him before the start of the program so that hecan actively participate in the reconstruction process.

• NGOs have different capabilities and resources andhence only those which have the experience and capacityto address the issues of long-term sustainability shouldbe involved in housing reconstruction.

• There should not be just entry policy for NGOs but alsoa clear exit policy

THANK YOU